Re: [css-color][filter-effects] (was: Re: [filter-effects] Tainted filter primitives)

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>>>> I guess we should define in CSS Colors a "sanitized 'color' value" that is
>>>>> safe to be exposed to Web scripts, and in Filters define 'flood-color' and
>>>>> 'lighting-color' to use the "sanitized 'color' value" for currentColor
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with this.  So what all goes into it?  Color values coming
>>>> from :visited selectors, obviously, and transitively with
>>>> currentcolor.  Anything else?
>>>
>>> Looks like my previous mail didn’t get through.
>>>
>>> Why not be a bit more conservative. Since we want to expose "used values” and “active values" by CSS OM - why not let currentColor always get the same color that a “active value” property or function would return? I mean we should not differ between currentColor with “sanitized ‘color’” and another one. Just always use the  “sanitized ‘color’” for currentColor.
>>
>> That's silly.  There's no reason to break currentcolor just because
>> :visited is being used.
>
> Ok, but you don’t think it is “silly” if we break currentColor sometimes?

I don't understand.

> Beside that, you broke currentColor less than a year ago when you (actually the CSS WG) changed the behavior of it. I don’t think that WebKit or Blink have ever updated the behavior since then. Therefore, it is already broken.

Whoa, way to be hostilely accusative, dude.  Maybe try backing off?

~TJ

Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 20:19:37 UTC